Carly Fiorina For Senator

Boxer, first elected in 1992, would not rate on anyone's list of most influential senators. Her most famous moments on Capitol Hill have not been ones of legislative accomplishment, but of delivering partisan shots. Although she is chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is telling that leadership on the most pressing issue before it - climate change - was shifted to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., because the bill had become so polarized under her wing.

For some Californians, Boxer's reliably liberal voting record may be reason enough to give her another six years in office. But we believe Californians deserve more than a usually correct vote on issues they care about. They deserve a senator who is accessible, effective and willing and able to reach across party lines to achieve progress on the great issues of our times. Boxer falls short on those counts.

Boxer's campaign, playing to resentment over Fiorina's wealth, is not only an example of the personalized pettiness that has infected too much of modern politics, it is also a clear sign of desperation.

I may not agree with Fiorina on many issues; but I do respect her. And if she's too far off-base, we will replace her in six years.

With someone who isn't Barbara Boxer. Because really, that's all I'm looking for in this race.

Since I think the last thing we want is the current "thousand-year Senators", I'd vote for a ham sandwich before I'd see Boxer elected again. And Carly would at least have a clue about regulation and the tech biz, unlike Her Senatrixness.

Looking at the Fiorina website I don't see much evidence of independent thought, just party line talking points:

--job creation: deregulate, pledge not to vote for any tax increase.

--continue ’01 and ’03 tax cuts. Fight increase in estate taxes.

--accountability: post bills on internet 3 days in advance.

--water to agribusinesses over fish

--repeal health care

--grow the economy and cut spending

--oppose cap and trade

If you think that this is what the country or this state needs, she's your gal. I don't.

Let me pick one example, the idea that deregulation will lead to job growth. Looking at construction, what I know most about, there is undeniably a lot of regulation in construction: building codes, health and safety codes, wage and hour regulations, environmental regulation, etc. etc. Take construction of a $700 million hospital. All this regulation takes a lot of experience to administer, and it takes a lot of employees to assure compliance (hence employment). There is no doubt that it makes it more difficult for contractors to compete for this work. There is also no doubt it raises the price tag. However, on any given project employement is greater than without the regulations, not less. Construction is also safer, better, and more environmentally sound.

Maybe if this regulation makes a hospital, say 20% more expensive (I'm making it up), we would have more new hospitals built if we did not have the regulation? It's possible. If so, we'd have to look at how many hospitals extra would be built? How many jobs would that create over the jobs added by regulation, if any? Would we want to significantly backslide in worker and building safety that regulation has brought us in order to have more (less safe) hospitals built?

"Grow the economy and cut spending!" O.k., but what if you need to spend to grow the economy?

[Pet peeve, which applies to virtually all political candidates: with all the millions spent on campaigns wouln't it be nice if position statements on websites were better thought through, more rigorous, and if they referenced scholarly work--what we need is some more participation by elites in the process!]

I'm voting for Boxer because I'm looking for votes for fish over agri-business and votes for the environment over polluters. I'm voting for Boxer because I think a market solution to controlling emissions is sensible, I think the health care legislation is a start that needs to be improved, not repealed, and because I think we need tax policy that is progressive, not regressive.

Leave a comment

Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:

*This* puts text in bold.

_This_ puts text in italics.

bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.

To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.